According to newly declassified court orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the National Security Agency was (and may still be) tipping off the FBI at least two to three times per day going back at least to 2006.

The new documents are heavily redacted orders from FISC to the FBI. These items request that the court order an entity (likely a business) to provide “tangible things” under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. The documents do not refer to who the target is, nor which company or organization they apply to.

"The Court understands that NSA expects that it will continue to provide on average approximately three telephone identifiers per day to the FBI,” reads a footnote in a 2007 court order (PDF) authored by FISC Judge Frederick Scullin, Jr.

A similar footnote from a November 2006 court order refers to “two telephone numbers.” The “three” figure was continued until documents from March 2009, when the specific language changed to simply “information.” That month appears to have been a turning point between intelligence agencies and the FISC.

"Reasonable, articulable suspicion"

As we reported after the August 2013 release of declassified court documents, Judge Reggie Walton lambasted the government’s mistakes on the business records metadata collection program.

Further Reading

According to his newly released March 2009 FISC order (PDF), the court required the NSA to only access the vast metadata archive when there is a “reasonable, articulable suspicion [RAS] that the telephone identifier is associated with [REDACTED]” as of February 2009. (Presumably that association has something to do with a terrorism or national security threat.)

That same 2009 FISC order says that the government had not lived up to the court’s requirements.

Before the FISC’s initial authorization of the metadata sharing program in May 2006, the NSA developed an "alert list process" that compared telephone numbers to incoming data from its "business record (BR)" collection.

Thus, since the earliest days of the FISC-authorized collection of call-detail records by the NSA, the NSA has, on a daily basis, accessed the BR metadata for purposes of comparing thousands of non-RAS approved telephone identifiers on its alert list against the BR metadata in order to identify any matches. Such access was prohibited by the governing minimization procedures under each of the relevant Court orders, as the government concedes in its submission.

The government’s submission suggests that its non-compliance with the Court’s orders resulted from a belief by some personnel within the NSA that some of the Court’s restrictions on access to the BR metadata applied only to “archived data,” i.e., data residing within certain databases at the NSA. That interpretation of the Court’s Orders strains credulity. It is difficult to imagine why the Court would intend the applicability of the RAS requirements—a critical component of the procedures proposed by the government and adopted by the Court—to turn on whether or not the data being access has been “archived” by the NSA in a particular database at the time of the access. Indeed, to the extent that the NSA makes the decision about where to store incoming BR metadata and when the archiving occurs, such an illogical interpretation of this Court’s Orders renders compliance with the RAS requirement merely optional.

Watching the watchers

The newly declassified court orders from last Friday appear to indicate that while the FBI is being granted the order, it is in fact the NSA that is obtaining and analyzing the information first before handing it over to the FBI.

The judge also outlined data handling procedures that the agencies had to follow.

More specifically, access to the archived data shall only occur when NSA has identified a known telephone number for which, based on the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent persons act, there are facts giving rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the telephone number is associated with [REDACTED]; provided however, that a telephone number believed to be used by a US person shall not be regarded as associated with [REDACTED] solely on the basis of activities that are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The document continues, noting that all “meta data shall be stored and processed on a secure private network that NSA exclusively will operate,” that the software interface to the archive would be controlled by username and password, and that “when the meta data archive is accessed, the user’s login, Internet Protocol address, date and time, and retrieval request shall be automatically logged for auditing capability. NSA’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) shall monitor the functioning of this automatic logging capability.”

Further Reading

New declassifed documents show legal arguments over bulk metadata collection.

Judge Scullin also required NSA OGC to “conduct random spot checks, consisting of an examination of a sample of call-detail records obtained, to ensure that NSA is receiving only data as authorized by the Court and not receiving the substantive content of communications.”

“I am not sure it tells us anything new but rather adds more confirmation to a widely suspected and occasionally confirmed technique of law enforcement following intelligence leads and then reverse-engineering a paper trail to use in court," Fred Cate, a law professor at Indiana University, told Ars. “Some people have even speculated that the multiplicity of overlapping NSA surveillance programs are intended to provide cover programs that provide a more legitimate basis for data found through other programs.”

However, others pointed out that in the absence of further information as to how exactly the NSA’s information is sent to the FBI, and under what circumstances, it’s impossible to know precisely what’s going on.

“Furthermore, given how broadly it's possible to define the word ‘tip,’ we have no information on how useful those thousand tips were,” Brian Pascal, a research fellow at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, told Ars. “Both intelligence and law enforcement organizations receive many, many tips, and a large part of their job is separating the signal from the noise.

“As far as parallel construction goes, the only thing I can say for certain is that if one records a sufficiently large number of dots, then it's possible to connect them to draw any number of pictures. This is not always the result of nefarious intentions—it can happen unintentionally too. Think about all the people who were improperly placed on watchlists due to conclusions reached by some opaque algorithm.”

It's also noteworthy that this rate of tips (2-3 per day) was during the period when searches were apparently going on in violation of the FISA's authorization. Did the rate change when the NSA began (hopefully) limiting itself to the FISA-ordered standard? If so, does that mean this database was being used to a significant degree for general law enforcement and not just anti-terrorism purposes?

For me there are two things here. The first is the invasion of our privacy. Bad enough. The second is my nagging suspicion that we do not get anything in return in higher security. In other words mass surveillance doesn't help to find terrorists the data points are too rare.

If they actually provide hints to the FBI that directly result in convictions they would otherwise not have made I would feel a tiny bit better towards the program. Sure they virtually rape my privacy but at least I do not get blown up in return. So if they can show that they are not just invading our privacy and blowing tens of billions of dollars out the window in the progress I would like to hear that.

Now even if they do that it doesn't mean that I am for this mass surveillance but it would at least make the decision a bit harder. At the moment I would see tens of billions of dollars wasted, no security in return and our privacy invaded. A clear lose lose lose scenario if you are not on the nsa retainer.

Are we to understand that the US government has declassified documents (at who's behest?) that shows the NSA was not following FISC-issued requirements?

I'm not sure what has this to do with the NSA 'tipping off' the FBI? Ever since Clinton's presidency at least, the NSA was one of a group of intelligence and law-enforcement agencies that did cooperate - at a high level - in pursuing leads on terrorism. If there were suspected terrorists etc in the US (and there were) then of course the NSA might pass such info to the FBI (as the NSA itself does not investigate crime of course). As with the NSA's passing of info to the DEA (which dates to the early 80s I think; it was Reagan who authorised that?) I'm not seeing a major issue?

In response to JPan - actual prosecutions of terrorists are rare - the goal is to catch them before the act, not afterwards. Following their activities and rooting out the supporting networks is also far more important in the long run than just sticking a few miserable ragheads in prison. Also, I think that the NSA in this regard has somewhat different goals to law enforcement - but both serve national policy, which (depending on who was president...) was essentially 'go after terrorists, in particular al-Quaeda, as a national security priority' (remember this is all post-cold war, too).

The truth is that almost all anti-terror ops are necessarily clandestine and I'm willing to bet more than a few terrorists ended up either dead, or in foreign jails, when they were caught (which was very often abroad).

As for 'virtually raping your privacy' - pay attention, we are talking about metadata, not the 'substantive material' of the communication itself. Your communications were not stored or examined themselves, merely the fact of your communications, etc. They wouldn't be reading your mails, texts etc unless you were a known/suspected associate (1,2 or 3 degrees of freedom) or at least fit a profile... Out of 300,000,000 I'd be surprised if even 0.01% ever found themselves under closer scrutiny. So basically your privacy has remained intact.

You do realize that under the current NSA definition, "metadata" means all data EXCEPT live, current voice calls. This includes all internet traffic, SMS, text messages, phone locator records, all GPS data relayed using the "find your family" features of modern phones, and all iPhone voice mail messages. This is almost identical to saying that the NSA has cameras placed on every window of your house, but because they have everyone tapped the same way, it's ok because they'll never get around to checking your bathroom habits.

Have personally seen where NSA call chaining has stopped both homeland and international terrorist activities. The stuff they catch and no one ever hears about is pretty huge. ...

People just hear about the latter and not the former and so they freak out.

Part of the issue here is that review boards and representatives in an authorized position to look over documents of this nature have not been presented with meaningful evidence of homeland or international terrorist activities. There have been opportunities to offer up the documentation, and it just hasn't happened.

As a result there is doubt being cast on claims that terrorist activities have been stopped. There is the appearance that citizen rights have been trampled in meaningful ways for little to no gain in the stated purposes.

I would be comforted to know these tools are being put to their stated use, but every piece of information to come out has cast a lot of doubt on that fact. Worse, many of the responses seem to paint the leadership as emotional, subject to lashing out.

[quote]the court required the NSA to only access the vast metadata archive when there is a “reasonable, articulable suspicion [RAS] that the telephone identifier is associated with [REDACTED]” as of February 2009. (Presumably that association has something to do with a terrorism or national security threat.)[quote]

Have personally seen where NSA call chaining has stopped both homeland and international terrorist activities. The stuff they catch and no one ever hears about is pretty huge. NSA is also pretty good about internally policing against abuse, I know one analyst who was call chaining his (ex)girlfriend and it took about a week for the ninjas in the background to figure it out and yank his clearance and can his ass.

People just hear about the latter and not the former and so they freak out.

Are we to understand that the US government has declassified documents (at who's behest?) that shows the NSA was not following FISC-issued requirements?

I'm not sure what has this to do with the NSA 'tipping off' the FBI? Ever since Clinton's presidency at least, the NSA was one of a group of intelligence and law-enforcement agencies that did cooperate - at a high level - in pursuing leads on terrorism. If there were suspected terrorists etc in the US (and there were) then of course the NSA might pass such info to the FBI (as the NSA itself does not investigate crime of course). As with the NSA's passing of info to the DEA (which dates to the early 80s I think; it was Reagan who authorised that?) I'm not seeing a major issue?

Eh, I don't really see an issue anyway, most of the data they suck up is boring pointless and does not affect the average human. The ones who are like 2 steps from shady fuckers are where it starts to get interesting, If you call your local Imam and he happens to be sending money to support shitheads (happens a lot) you can expect to have some nerdy analyst look at your call logs at least once. If you are Suzy the soccer mom, you prolly wont ever get eyeballed.

If you have nothing to hide, then why do you have a door on your bathroom and bedroom.

The critical thing here, which is not entirely clear from the article, is whether or not the tips forwarded to the FBI were entirely limited to national security issues. If not, which seems likely at this point, that is a HUGE deal, since the entire excuse for why we are doing such invasive things is that they are necessary for national security, and will be carefully limited to being used for just that.

The classic way liberties disappear is this:

1. a liberty is set aside temporarily because of an emergency (natural disaster, war, etc).

2. Law enforcement or the military is let off the leash to pursue the causes of the emergency.

3. Law enforcement or the military then starts applying those expanded powers to other, unrelated issues (drug enforcement, political dissent, etc etc) because "hey, we've got the capability now, let's use it."

4. the emergency is over, but the special powers remain; because "law and order".

5. game over

If info from NSA surveillance has been used for ANY domestic law enforcement unrelated to national security, everyone involved needs to be crucified.

Are we to understand that the US government has declassified documents (at who's behest?) that shows the NSA was not following FISC-issued requirements?

I'm not sure what has this to do with the NSA 'tipping off' the FBI? Ever since Clinton's presidency at least, the NSA was one of a group of intelligence and law-enforcement agencies that did cooperate - at a high level - in pursuing leads on terrorism. If there were suspected terrorists etc in the US (and there were) then of course the NSA might pass such info to the FBI (as the NSA itself does not investigate crime of course). As with the NSA's passing of info to the DEA (which dates to the early 80s I think; it was Reagan who authorised that?) I'm not seeing a major issue?

There's a huge legal issue here. If the original tip (and all subsequent evidence) was obtained via illegal means, and that is challenged in court, the entire case can be thrown out. There are two alternatives: one, make sure there's a paper trail that hides the original tip, or two, begin extra-judicial executions of suspects. Both are now proven to be happening (the CIA kill list for suspects outside US jurisdiction, and the FBI doing "parallel investigations").

The critical thing here, which is not entirely clear from the article, is whether or not the tips forwarded to the FBI were entirely limited to national security issues. If not, which seems likely at this point, that is a HUGE deal, since the entire excuse for why we are doing such invasive things is that they are necessary for national security, and will be carefully limited to being used for just that.

The classic way liberties disappear is this:

1. a liberty is set aside temporarily because of an emergency (natural disaster, war, etc).

2. Law enforcement or the military is let off the leash to pursue the causes of the emergency.

3. Law enforcement or the military then starts applying those expanded powers to other, unrelated issues (drug enforcement, political dissent, etc etc) because "hey, we've got the capability now, let's use it."

4. the emergency is over, but the special powers remain; because "law and order".

5. game over

Apparently, the US government definition of "temporary" is "at least forever".

Have personally seen where NSA call chaining has stopped both homeland and international terrorist activities. The stuff they catch and no one ever hears about is pretty huge. NSA is also pretty good about internally policing against abuse, I know one analyst who was call chaining his (ex)girlfriend and it took about a week for the ninjas in the background to figure it out and yank his clearance and can his ass.

People just hear about the latter and not the former and so they freak out.

Perhaps you should testify before Congress, because the evidence that has been publicly presented hasn't provided any tangible results in regards to terror plots stopped, and the LOVEINT stuff we know has shown that the employees confessed because they couldn't fool a polygraph. If you can't catch someone with a security clearance that can't fool a polygraph, you can't catch a moderately competent rogue agent.

For me there are two things here. The first is the invasion of our privacy. Bad enough. The second is my nagging suspicion that we do not get anything in return in higher security. In other words mass surveillance doesn't help to find terrorists the data points are too rare.

If they actually provide hints to the FBI that directly result in convictions they would otherwise not have made I would feel a tiny bit better towards the program. Sure they virtually rape my privacy but at least I do not get blown up in return. So if they can show that they are not just invading our privacy and blowing tens of billions of dollars out the window in the progress I would like to hear that.

Now even if they do that it doesn't mean that I am for this mass surveillance but it would at least make the decision a bit harder. At the moment I would see tens of billions of dollars wasted, no security in return and our privacy invaded. A clear lose lose lose scenario if you are not on the nsa retainer.

I agree, there are certainly tens of billions of dollars being wasted.

Tens of billions of dollars for 2-3 tips a day, and the best terrorist plots they can claim to have foiled are a few half-crazed rants about a fictional BIOS-dwelling virus?

They should have just saved the money and invested it in funding an education system that is slightly less of a joke. The idea of wasting so much money to fight such tiny threats is ludicrous, no wonder they pass data to the DEA and FBI, it isn't like they have any legitimate uses for it.

Are we to understand that the US government has declassified documents (at who's behest?) that shows the NSA was not following FISC-issued requirements?

I'm not sure what has this to do with the NSA 'tipping off' the FBI? Ever since Clinton's presidency at least, the NSA was one of a group of intelligence and law-enforcement agencies that did cooperate - at a high level - in pursuing leads on terrorism. If there were suspected terrorists etc in the US (and there were) then of course the NSA might pass such info to the FBI (as the NSA itself does not investigate crime of course). As with the NSA's passing of info to the DEA (which dates to the early 80s I think; it was Reagan who authorised that?) I'm not seeing a major issue?

Eh, I don't really see an issue anyway, most of the data they suck up is boring pointless and does not affect the average human. The ones who are like 2 steps from shady fuckers are where it starts to get interesting, If you call your local Imam and he happens to be sending money to support shitheads (happens a lot) you can expect to have some nerdy analyst look at your call logs at least once. If you are Suzy the soccer mom, you prolly wont ever get eyeballed.

If you have nothing to hide, then why do you have a door on your bathroom and bedroom.

I actually have neither, would you like a picture?

I look forward to hearing about your arrest for indecent exposure. Or are you already in prison?

In response to JPan - actual prosecutions of terrorists are rare - the goal is to catch them before the act, not afterwards. Following their activities and rooting out the supporting networks is also far more important in the long run than just sticking a few miserable ragheads in prison. Also, I think that the NSA in this regard has somewhat different goals to law enforcement - but both serve national policy, which (depending on who was president...) was essentially 'go after terrorists, in particular al-Quaeda, as a national security priority' (remember this is all post-cold war, too).

The truth is that almost all anti-terror ops are necessarily clandestine and I'm willing to bet more than a few terrorists ended up either dead, or in foreign jails, when they were caught (which was very often abroad).

I'm willing to bet they also stopped more than a few dragons, and by stopped more than a few dragons, I mean someone ran over a lizard once by accident.

Have personally seen where NSA call chaining has stopped both homeland and international terrorist activities. The stuff they catch and no one ever hears about is pretty huge. NSA is also pretty good about internally policing against abuse, I know one analyst who was call chaining his (ex)girlfriend and it took about a week for the ninjas in the background to figure it out and yank his clearance and can his ass.

People just hear about the latter and not the former and so they freak out.

Perhaps you should testify before Congress, because the evidence that has been publicly presented hasn't provided any tangible results in regards to terror plots stopped, and the LOVEINT stuff we know has shown that the employees confessed because they couldn't fool a polygraph. If you can't catch someone with a security clearance that can't fool a polygraph, you can't catch a moderately competent rogue agent.

Hate politicians. Also I am sadly what they refer to as a liberals worst nightmare, because while I believe the ends are the means, sometimes a few eggs need to be cracked to make an omelette.

Where we differ is why those eggs had to be broken - was it for a hungry family or to make a rich guy feel better?

Have personally seen where NSA call chaining has stopped both homeland and international terrorist activities. The stuff they catch and no one ever hears about is pretty huge. NSA is also pretty good about internally policing against abuse, I know one analyst who was call chaining his (ex)girlfriend and it took about a week for the ninjas in the background to figure it out and yank his clearance and can his ass.

People just hear about the latter and not the former and so they freak out.

Perhaps you should testify before Congress, because the evidence that has been publicly presented hasn't provided any tangible results in regards to terror plots stopped, and the LOVEINT stuff we know has shown that the employees confessed because they couldn't fool a polygraph. If you can't catch someone with a security clearance that can't fool a polygraph, you can't catch a moderately competent rogue agent.

Hate politicians. Also I am sadly what they refer to as a liberals worst nightmare, because while I believe the ends are the means, sometimes a few eggs need to be cracked to make an omelette.

Something of a moot point if you don't really need an omelette.

Remind me, what was the average death rate due to terrorist activity in the US in the 90s? How about the last decade? Now what happens if you remove 9/11 from that average?

Have personally seen where NSA call chaining has stopped both homeland and international terrorist activities. The stuff they catch and no one ever hears about is pretty huge. NSA is also pretty good about internally policing against abuse, I know one analyst who was call chaining his (ex)girlfriend and it took about a week for the ninjas in the background to figure it out and yank his clearance and can his ass.

People just hear about the latter and not the former and so they freak out.

Tens of billions of dollars for 2-3 tips a day, and the best terrorist plots they can claim to have foiled are a few half-crazed rants about a fictional BIOS-dwelling virus?

there was an article last week about an external review of 225 terrorism cases that showed metadata collection only being useful in busting a Somali immigrant and three associates for sending $8.5k to a Somali terrorist group.

either this is a huge useless fishing expedition, or there's an awful lot of illegal paperwork-fudging shenanigans going on.

The critical thing here, which is not entirely clear from the article, is whether or not the tips forwarded to the FBI were entirely limited to national security issues. If not, which seems likely at this point, that is a HUGE deal, since the entire excuse for why we are doing such invasive things is that they are necessary for national security, and will be carefully limited to being used for just that.

The classic way liberties disappear is this:

1. a liberty is set aside temporarily because of an emergency (natural disaster, war, etc).

2. Law enforcement or the military is let off the leash to pursue the causes of the emergency.

3. Law enforcement or the military then starts applying those expanded powers to other, unrelated issues (drug enforcement, political dissent, etc etc) because "hey, we've got the capability now, let's use it."

4. the emergency is over, but the special powers remain; because "law and order".

5. game over

If info from NSA surveillance has been used for ANY domestic law enforcement unrelated to national security, everyone involved needs to be crucified.

Most of it, yes. Crucified? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. Instead, can them thoroughly and make sure they never get a DoD job ever again. They've proven they can't be trusted in the slightest. However, because they are spies, make sure they have some sort of livelihood. The last thing you want is ex-spies with an axe to grind running around.

Have personally seen where NSA call chaining has stopped both homeland and international terrorist activities. The stuff they catch and no one ever hears about is pretty huge. NSA is also pretty good about internally policing against abuse, I know one analyst who was call chaining his (ex)girlfriend and it took about a week for the ninjas in the background to figure it out and yank his clearance and can his ass.

People just hear about the latter and not the former and so they freak out.

Perhaps you should testify before Congress, because the evidence that has been publicly presented hasn't provided any tangible results in regards to terror plots stopped, and the LOVEINT stuff we know has shown that the employees confessed because they couldn't fool a polygraph. If you can't catch someone with a security clearance that can't fool a polygraph, you can't catch a moderately competent rogue agent.

Hate politicians. Also I am sadly what they refer to as a liberals worst nightmare, because while I believe the ends are the means, sometimes a few eggs need to be cracked to make an omelette.

Edit: Since I am making no friends here because Ars tends to lean very heavily liberal, I will dig a little deeper. While I do not agree with a lot of the stuff that clandestine service and hell most of the Fibbies and civil protection people as it is, I firmly believe that 99% of what is wrong with the US are the politicians. I do not even vote anymore because, no matter who you vote for, it is going to be a career politician.

A nice deflection of your claims that greatly contrast the known facts. As for the omelette, it's not quite the same when you take someone else's eggs and claim that you are making an omelette, but never provide any evidence of that.

As for Ars' political leanings, I don't think it's so much a liberal bent as it is a tendency against authoritarianism.

Have personally seen where NSA call chaining has stopped both homeland and international terrorist activities. The stuff they catch and no one ever hears about is pretty huge. NSA is also pretty good about internally policing against abuse, I know one analyst who was call chaining his (ex)girlfriend and it took about a week for the ninjas in the background to figure it out and yank his clearance and can his ass.

People just hear about the latter and not the former and so they freak out.

Perhaps you should testify before Congress, because the evidence that has been publicly presented hasn't provided any tangible results in regards to terror plots stopped, and the LOVEINT stuff we know has shown that the employees confessed because they couldn't fool a polygraph. If you can't catch someone with a security clearance that can't fool a polygraph, you can't catch a moderately competent rogue agent.

Hate politicians. Also I am sadly what they refer to as a liberals worst nightmare, because while I believe the ends are the means, sometimes a few eggs need to be cracked to make an omelette.

Edit: Since I am making no friends here because Ars tends to lean very heavily liberal, I will dig a little deeper. While I do not agree with a lot of the stuff that clandestine service and hell most of the Fibbies and civil protection people as it is, I firmly believe that 99% of what is wrong with the US are the politicians. I do not even vote anymore because, no matter who you vote for, it is going to be a career politician.

A nice deflection of your claims that greatly contrast the known facts. As for the omelette, it's not quite the same when you take someone else's eggs and claim that you are making an omelette, but never provide any evidence of that.

As for Ars' political leanings, I don't think it's so much a liberal bent as it is a tendency against authoritarianism.

Oh, and to expand, if you don't vote you can't complain. Your vote may get drowned out by the masses (and, possibly a untrustworhty elector in the Electoral College when the Presidential elections come up), but you have made your opinion known and participated in the process, instead of just sitting on the sidelines and permawhining.

If you're attached with the military as you imply you are...well, in my experience military types take a dim view of whining in general. How have you survived in such an environment for so long?

Have personally seen where NSA call chaining has stopped both homeland and international terrorist activities. The stuff they catch and no one ever hears about is pretty huge. NSA is also pretty good about internally policing against abuse, I know one analyst who was call chaining his (ex)girlfriend and it took about a week for the ninjas in the background to figure it out and yank his clearance and can his ass.

People just hear about the latter and not the former and so they freak out.

If you are right we should not be hearing anymore from you....

And yet I uttered nothing classified. I did not however downvote you, that was someone else... So upvote for you friend since the downs are so abused on Ars by clowns.

I was more commenting on you disappearing just for having the temerity to mention it. Not really on the content.

Edit: Since I am making no friends here because Ars tends to lean very heavily liberal, I will dig a little deeper. While I do not agree with a lot of the stuff that clandestine service and hell most of the Fibbies and civil protection people as it is, I firmly believe that 99% of what is wrong with the US are the politicians. I do not even vote anymore because, no matter who you vote for, it is going to be a career politician.

Classic delusional cognition. Most people here think your opinions are wrong so they must all be [insert scapegoat group here]. For you, its "liberals" for some its "gays", "illegals", etc. Sounds to me like you desperately needs some introspection on your own views rather than blaming your troubles on some nebulous external group.

Have personally seen where NSA call chaining has stopped both homeland and international terrorist activities. The stuff they catch and no one ever hears about is pretty huge. NSA is also pretty good about internally policing against abuse, I know one analyst who was call chaining his (ex)girlfriend and it took about a week for the ninjas in the background to figure it out and yank his clearance and can his ass.

People just hear about the latter and not the former and so they freak out.

Specific details, or it didn't happen. We've heard this claim before.

Ah, yes, the Ars version of /b/'s common question (T*ts or GTFO). Might want to pile a few /citation needed/ tags on it as well.

Although in this instance, it's very apropos. There has been one (count it ONE) instance of provable stopping of terrorism using the metadata program, and it was entirely an effort to ship cash overseas (and an amateur one at that). If there's been more, PLEASE tell the administration to shout them from the rooftops and point to a prosecution - we all would like it to be true.

Have personally seen where NSA call chaining has stopped both homeland and international terrorist activities. The stuff they catch and no one ever hears about is pretty huge. NSA is also pretty good about internally policing against abuse, I know one analyst who was call chaining his (ex)girlfriend and it took about a week for the ninjas in the background to figure it out and yank his clearance and can his ass.

People just hear about the latter and not the former and so they freak out.

Perhaps you should testify before Congress, because the evidence that has been publicly presented hasn't provided any tangible results in regards to terror plots stopped, and the LOVEINT stuff we know has shown that the employees confessed because they couldn't fool a polygraph. If you can't catch someone with a security clearance that can't fool a polygraph, you can't catch a moderately competent rogue agent.

Hate politicians. Also I am sadly what they refer to as a liberals worst nightmare, because while I believe the ends are the means, sometimes a few eggs need to be cracked to make an omelette.

Edit: Since I am making no friends here because Ars tends to lean very heavily liberal, I will dig a little deeper. While I do not agree with a lot of the stuff that clandestine service and hell most of the Fibbies and civil protection people as it is, I firmly believe that 99% of what is wrong with the US are the politicians. I do not even vote anymore because, no matter who you vote for, it is going to be a career politician.

I think we can both agree that some eggs need to be cracked to make an omelet. The question is what omelet you're trying to make.

The supporters of this NSA activity would like to make the Police State Scramble, where they are able to stop every crime by virtue of knowing everything happening, if that means that every law abiding citizen has their fundamental civil rights trampled, and some people misuse the information to the harm of citizens, oh well - at least we protected "the children."

I would prefer a nice Responsible Liberty Skillet myself. In this case we accept that the price for protecting the rights of citizens is that crimes will happen. We place our government under restrictions that are used to do the best to ensure that citizens are treated with respect, and are safe from undue surveillance, search, and seizure. We understand that the price for living free is the risk of bad things happening, and we personally take responsibility for our lives.

But I guess that doesn't do much for the constant whinge about "the children."

More like something that any thinking person might consider to be overcompensating for deep-routed insecurities.

Quote:

...because while I believe the ends are the means, sometimes a few eggs need to be cracked to make an omelette.

One sees a lot of this folksy 'cowboy' rhetoric among military-associated and security/law-enforcement wannabes. Throw in a few "bad guys" and forced TLAs and you'll have the jargon down pat.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for definitive proof that the NSA has earned back even ten dollars' worth of their leader's custom play-castle fortress that he built for himself. They sure as shit haven't prevented a single case of the rampant ID-theft and financial fraud that seems to be plaguing this country on a weekly basis.

Have personally seen where NSA call chaining has stopped both homeland and international terrorist activities. The stuff they catch and no one ever hears about is pretty huge. NSA is also pretty good about internally policing against abuse, I know one analyst who was call chaining his (ex)girlfriend and it took about a week for the ninjas in the background to figure it out and yank his clearance and can his ass.

People just hear about the latter and not the former and so they freak out.

Perhaps you should testify before Congress, because the evidence that has been publicly presented hasn't provided any tangible results in regards to terror plots stopped, and the LOVEINT stuff we know has shown that the employees confessed because they couldn't fool a polygraph. If you can't catch someone with a security clearance that can't fool a polygraph, you can't catch a moderately competent rogue agent.

Hate politicians. Also I am sadly what they refer to as a liberals worst nightmare, because while I believe the ends are the means, sometimes a few eggs need to be cracked to make an omelette.

Edit: Since I am making no friends here because Ars tends to lean very heavily liberal, I will dig a little deeper. While I do not agree with a lot of the stuff that clandestine service and hell most of the Fibbies and civil protection people as it is, I firmly believe that 99% of what is wrong with the US are the politicians. I do not even vote anymore because, no matter who you vote for, it is going to be a career politician.

About the voting thing - if you do not vote, you have no say. This is not just true in the "no vote means you didn't say anything" sense. If you do not vote, then you have no leverage to talk to politicians at all. To them, the only currency (and clout) you have is your vote. If you make it clear that you don't vote for them, they will ignore you at best, and oppose you at worst.

I say this with one big caveat: that you are not writing large checks to (re)election campaigns. If you are, then you have the ear of the politician no matter how (or if) you vote.

Have personally seen where NSA call chaining has stopped both homeland and international terrorist activities. The stuff they catch and no one ever hears about is pretty huge. NSA is also pretty good about internally policing against abuse, I know one analyst who was call chaining his (ex)girlfriend and it took about a week for the ninjas in the background to figure it out and yank his clearance and can his ass.

People just hear about the latter and not the former and so they freak out.

Perhaps you should testify before Congress, because the evidence that has been publicly presented hasn't provided any tangible results in regards to terror plots stopped, and the LOVEINT stuff we know has shown that the employees confessed because they couldn't fool a polygraph. If you can't catch someone with a security clearance that can't fool a polygraph, you can't catch a moderately competent rogue agent.

Hate politicians. Also I am sadly what they refer to as a liberals worst nightmare, because while I believe the ends are the means, sometimes a few eggs need to be cracked to make an omelette.

Edit: Since I am making no friends here because Ars tends to lean very heavily liberal, I will dig a little deeper. While I do not agree with a lot of the stuff that clandestine service and hell most of the Fibbies and civil protection people as it is, I firmly believe that 99% of what is wrong with the US are the politicians. I do not even vote anymore because, no matter who you vote for, it is going to be a career politician.

I think we can both agree that some eggs need to be cracked to make an omelet. The question is what omelet you're trying to make.

I so despise that rational.

It implies that its okay to ruin someone's life and discard it for the sake of convenience.